G.R. No.

L-38338 January 28, 1985

ROXAS vs. DE JESUS, JR.

FACTS:

After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Special Proceeding entitled
"In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus" was filed by
petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. On March 26, 1973,
petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was appointed administrator. After Letters of Administration had been
granted to the petitioner, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. On May 26, 1973, respondent Judge Jose
Colayco set the hearing of the probate of the holographic Will on July 21, 1973. Petitioner Simeon R.
Roxas testified that after his appointment as administrator, he found a notebook belonging to the deceased
Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-will addressed to her children and
entirely written and signed in the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. The will is
dated "FEB./61 " and states: "This is my will which I want to be respected although it is not
written by a lawyer. ...

The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and
Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 " is the holographic Will of
their deceased mother, Bibiana R. de Jesus. Both recognized the handwriting of their mother and
positively identified her signature. They further testified that their deceased mother understood English,
the language in which the holographic Will is written, and that the date "FEB./61 " was the date when
said Will was executed by their mother.

Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate" assailing the
purported holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because a it was not executed in accordance with law,
(b) it was executed through force, intimidation and/or under duress, undue influence and improper
pressure, and (c) the alleged testatrix acted by mistake and/or did not intend, nor could have intended the
said Will to be her last Will and testament at the time of its execution.

On August 24, 1973, respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order allowing the probate of the
holographic Will which he found to have been duly executed in accordance with law. On December 10,
1973, respondent Judge Colayco reconsidered his earlier order and disallowed the probate of the
holographic Will on the ground that the word "dated" has generally been held to include the month, day,
and year.

ISSUE: W/N the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code

HELD: Yes, if the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the requisites, although
compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such
requisite is actually attained by the form followed by the testator.

The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the execution of Wills has been expounded by this Court
in Abangan v. Abanga 40 Phil. 476, where we ruled that:
 The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door
against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty
their truth and authenticity. ...

In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that of two
competing Wills executed on the same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a
Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no such contingency in this case.

This will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the statutory
requirements regarding the due execution of Wills. We should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil
Code in the manner of execution of Wills, the purpose of which, in case of doubt is to prevent intestacy
— The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of the law on wigs in this
Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to
prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the
testator. This objective is in accord with the modem tendency with respect to the formalities in the
execution of wills. (Report of the Code Commission, p. 103)

Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to guard
against fraud and bad faith but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary
privilege (Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422). If a Will has been executed in substantial compliance
with the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is
obviated, said Will should be admitted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena 56 Phil. 282). Thus,

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its
execution nor was there any substitution of Wills and Testaments. There is no question that the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written, dated, and signed by
the testatrix herself and in a language known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness
and due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will of
their mother and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said Will. The
objection interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that the holographic Will is fatally
defective because the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will is not sufficient compliance with
Article 810 of the Civil Code. This objection is too technical to be entertained.

As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its
execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue
influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether
or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810
of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of
substantial compliance.